OSNews

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

try win xp x64

I agree that adoption will be slow for Vista. PC sales growth is declining, and people have gotten used to getting reasonable performance on sub $500 (US) PCs. The Aeor GUI is one of the few killer features that has been left in Vista (since WinFS is gone, and I hardly think DRM is good), and to make use of this technology MS is calling for a video card with more than 256MB RAM, 2GB of DDR3 memory and a S-ATA 2 hard drive according to this article:

http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6

MS tries to cover up the outrageous cost of this kind of hardware with marketng spiel about declining hardware prices. If trends stay the same and MS can stick to their current release date, it will probably cost at least $1,000 (US) to get a Dell that meets the necessary requirements.

Either businesses and home users will run Windows 2000 and XP longer, or they'll start looking at more affordable alternatives such as GNU/Linux and Mac (yes, this will make the Mac look more affordable).

I'ld also like to comment on MS's belief that Office 12 will be a huge money maker. If you look at this screenshot:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/Figure1.htm

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to. Plus I am not aware of any must have features in the new MS Office that is going to entice users to upgrade. Even on the idea of improving the UI for users MS Office 12 is a bad idea. The central focus on a document is the document itself whereas MS has taken away from the document's screen space to add ever more bloated toolbars (btw, the tabs metaphor is not the best idea for every app).

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to.

I personally think it's one of MS best moves recently. It's a bold move but a good one. The interface of Office has been pretty much the same from the start, they have just been adding features and features, leaving us with a crowded GUI that is confusing and ineffective to work with.
While I haven't used Office 12 I can't say if the new GUI is actually more efficient, but I applaud the effort to clean up the big mess it is today.
Businesses may very well see it as a long term investment to upgrade if the new GUI makes people more productive.

The OOo GUI is IMO just as messy. If MS are successful I sure hope that OOo choose to copy them. Otherwise, I hope they take a look at products such as Gobe Productive and KOffice which are both tons better in the usability department.

The article also says this:

"If you move from 32 to 64 bit, you basically need to at least double your memory. 2 gigs in 64 bit is the equivalent of a gig of RAM on a 32bit machine. That's because you're dealing with chunks that are twice the size� if you try to make do with what you've got you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue."

So, why exactly should we believe what it says? It's simply bad information.

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

win xp x64 has that reputation